Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hauenstein v. Loctite Corp., 347 N.W.2d 272.

109 citing documents.

Apache Plaza, Ltd. v. Midwest Savings Ass'n 456 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(jury’s answer to special verdict question will not be set aside unless palpably contrary to the evidence).
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Horseshoe Lake Farms, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Horseshoe Lake Farms, Inc. 456 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Alevizos v. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM'N 452 N.W.2d 492 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp. 448 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(determining whether punitive damages are appropriate under the particular facts of this case is within the jury’s discretion); (the court may set aside an answer to a special verdict question “only when it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence”).
Gilmore v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Gilmore v. Control Data Corp. 442 N.W.2d 835 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Karnes v. Milo Beauty & Barber Supply Co. 441 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Jewett v. Deutsch 437 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Obvious intoxication We will set aside an answer to a special verdict question only when it is “perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence * * *, and only if no reasonable mind could find as did the jury.” (citation omitted).
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
ESTATE OF JONES BY BLUME v. Kvamme 430 N.W.2d 188 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Reedon of Faribault, Inc. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Reedon of Faribault, Inc. v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. 418 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1988
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St.
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Tsudek v. Target Stores, Inc. 414 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Conroy v. Book Automation, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Conroy v. Book Automation, Inc. 398 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Tachtronic Instruments, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Tachtronic Instruments, Inc. 394 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
Mix v. MTD Products, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mix v. MTD Products, Inc. 393 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Buttz v. Bergeson 392 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc. 389 N.W.2d 514 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Olson v. City of Austin 386 N.W.2d 815 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Generally, an answer to a special verdict form may be set aside only where it is perverse and palpably contrary to the evidence, or where the evidence is so clear as to leave no room for a difference of opinion among reasonable persons
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Hughes v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc. 375 N.W.2d 875 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Clark v. Miller 378 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paul District No. 622, Norberg v. Northwestern Hospital Association, Inc., Kilbane v. County of Ramsey, 292 Minn. 86 , pet.
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Betz Ex Rel. Betz v. Nelson 367 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
This principle — that a verdict may stand if there is any theory which, if believed by the jury, could support it, : “If the answers to special verdict questions can be reconciled on any theory, the verdict will not be disturbed.” d at 275 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Insurance Co. of North America v. Federal Pacific Electric Co. 363 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(citing Nihart v. Kruger, 291 Minn. 273, 276 , (emphasis in original)).
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
Fallin v. Maplewood-North St. Paul District No. 622 362 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1985
a jury found by special verdict that defendant was negligent but that defendant’s negligence did not cause the injury.
Hall v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 357 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by